4th Symposium ofthe Hohe Tauern National ParkConference Volume for Research in Protected Areas pages 257-261___________________________ September 17th to 19th, 2009, Castle of Kaprun__________________________

Local plant knowledge of farmers' families in the Napf-region, Switzerland

Anna Poncet1, Christian R. Vogl1, Caroline Weckerle2

1 Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Applied LifeSciences BOKU, Vienna, Austria

2 Institute of Systematic Botany, University of Zürich, Switzerland

Summary

This contribution presents preliminary results of an ongoing PhD project which aims to explore linkages between plant diversity and local plant knowledge in the Napf-region in Switzerland. The central part of the Napf is a cultural landscape listed in the Federal Inventory of Landscapes and Natural Monuments of National Importance. Cultural Domain Analysis was used to get an overview of known and used plant species. In total 51 family members of twelve farmer families were asked to list indigenous plants, followed by semi-structured interviews about the use of the species. Roughly 400 wild and cultivated plant species were listed. The most frequently mentioned were Taraxacum officinale agg. and Rumex obtusifolius L.. Mentioned use categories, with declining frequency, were food, medicine for humans and animals, decoration, handicraft, toys and customs. Statistical analysis on the influence of demographic factors like age, gender, education, cultural background and farming system on plant knowledge revealed that age is the most important factor to explain knowledge Variation.

Keywords

ethnobotany, local plant knowledge, biocultural diversity, Napf-region, Switzerland

Introduction

Research in the field of biocultural diversity demonstrates that biological and cultural diversity are inextricably linked and landscapes with their plant diversity coevolved based upon local peoples1 land management strategies (e.g. Maffi, 2001). A prerequisite for effective biodiversity Conservation is therefore a better understanding of the interactions between local people and their environment.

In 2008 a PhD project was started to explore linkages between plant diversity and local plant knowledge in the Napf-region of Switzerland, a cultural landscape of national importance. The project aims at gaining insights into people and plant relationships in a mountainous area in central Europe, as a basis for applied projects in the fields of Conservation, environmental awareness and education.

The present paper summarizes preliminary results and provides an overview of the local plant knowledge.

Research area

The Napf-region, bounded by a circular valley structure, encompasses around 500 km2 and belongs to the northern alpine foothills (Figure 1). It harbours 1,063 different plant species (Welten & Sutter 1982, Wohlgemuth 1993). The central part of the region (1,61.4 km2) is registered in the Federal Inventory of Landscapes and Natural Monuments of National Importance, deserving to be protected and managed with the greatest possible care (BLN site Nr. 1311, 1983). In this inventory the Napfbergland is described as a „cultural landscape with exclusively solitary farms, shaped by pasture farming and plenter forestry".

The border between the cantons of Berne and Lucerne runs across the summit of the Napf and divides the region in two parts with a Protestant and a catholic background, respectively.

257

©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at

Figure 1: Research area: the Napf-region in Switzerland (map by author)

Because of the unique landscape, the cultural diversity and the solitary position of the farms which entail people to live in close contact with the environment, the Napf-region is well suited to provide new insights into biocultural diversity issues in mountainous central Europe.

Methods

A stratified sample of 12 farms was chosen. In both, the Protestant and the catholic part of the Napf-region, three organic and three conventional farms were randomly selected.

Each person living on every selected farm was asked for an interview. During August and September 2008 a total of 51 informants were interviewed comprising 28 men and 23 women, 10 to 71 years old. Overall, 27 of the informants live in the canton of Lucerne, 24 in the canton of Berne, 32 were interviewed on organic farms and 19 on non-organic farms.

The interviews were conducted individually. They consisted of a freelist, followed by a semi- structured interview (W eller & Romney 1988, Bernard 2002). The informant was asked to list all indigenous plants he or she could think of and was then asked for the uses of every listed item.

In presence of the informants, the non-cultivated species were vouchered. The specimens were identified according to the Flora Helvetica (Lauber & Wagner 2007) and deposited at the Natural Museum of Luzern (NMLU) and the herbarium of the University of Zürich (Z).

The Software packages Anthropac (Borgatti 1996a) and SPSS 16.0 for Windows were used for Cultural Domain Analysis and statistical analysis (Borgatti 1996b, Bernard 2002). To detect Variation of knowledge among the informants, the similarity of the answers was calculated and tested against sex, age, residence, religious background, farming system, family affiliation and agricultural formation by linear regression.

Results

The 51 interviewees listed each between 7 and 108 plants (mean: 46.3; ±26.5). They mentioned 439 different plant items (341 species, 37 varieties and subspecies, 55 generic terms; 8 undefined), including 185 cultivated plants and 10 fungi.

Only 14 species were mentioned by more than 50% of the informants (Table 1). The first place holds Taraxacum officinale which was named by 46 informants, followed by Rumex obtusifolius which was named by 39 informants. Of the 439 plants 223 were named only once or twice.

258

©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at

Table 1: The 14 most frequently named species and their uses in the Napf region in Switzerland (n=51)

Species Informants Reported uses

Taraxacum officinale agg.

food&fodder: leaves for salad, flowers for iam and wine, root for coffee. foraae plant for domestic animals and bees

med: leaves in salad cleaninq the blood, root for tea (liver)

46 deco&Dlav: bouauets, several children's aames (e.a. vellow make-UD, whistles. blowing away the seeds, water pipes)

other: indicates bv flowerina resD. fruitina time for silaae resD. hav harvestina

Rumex obtusifolius L. food&fodder: alcohol made from roots

39

med: ointment from leaves aaainst burns. fresh leaves relievina and coolina (varices, distortions, headache), tea from root for cows with "bad milk", seeds against diarrhea of cows, cows need to eat some for their fertility

deco&Dlav: leaves and areen buas to plav with

other: roots loosen the around. aood comDost

Rubus fruticosus agg.

34

food&fodder: fruits (eaten raw. iam. svruDS. desserts, mueslil. leaves in tea mixtu res

med: tea of leaves (Drostata. stomach ache). leaves aaainst diarrhea of cows

Urtica dioica L. food&fodder: leaves for cookina (sDinach. soud . Omelettes"), dried Dlant aood fodder, food for Caterpillars

32 med: seeds aood for immune svsterrO. tea of leaves (to clean the blood. drain the body, support the mind, for bladder and stomach, against fatigue)

other: manure and bioloaical pest control in the aarden. improves the soil

Abies alba MILL. food&fodder: imDortant food source for bees

med: branches fed to qoats aqainst worms

31 deco&Dlav: Christmas tree. advent wreath. branches for decoration

other: wood (firewood. construction. furniture, poles), branches to cover plants in the garden during winter, small dried twigs to light fire, shield between house and road, important for mistletoes, forest as place to relax

Picea abies (L.) H. food&fodder: iam of youna leaves. important food source for beesKARST.

med: svruD of vouna leaves aaainst colds

31 deco&Dlav: Christmas tree. branches for decoration, ornamental tree in the garden, cones to play with

other: wood (firewood. construction. furniture, cheese-boards, Doles. shinales), cones to light fire, wood sold for cellulose production

Acer pseudoplatanus L. food&fodder: important for bees

30deco&Dlav: autumn leaves for decoration. fruits to Dut on nose and ears or to make propellers

other: hard and white wood (furniture. carvina. construction, handles of tools, good firewood), shadow for grazing animals

Rubus idaeus L.30

food&fodder: fruits (eaten raw. iam, svhjds . desserts, muesli, vineaar. alcohoh

med: tea of leaves for Dreanant women (facilitates birth)

Sambucus nigra L. food&fodder: flowers deeD-fried. Duree o ffru its eaten with Dotatoes, fruits for jam and liqueur, flowers for syrup and sparkling wine, goats eat the leaves

30

med: tea of flowers and syrup of fruits aaainst colds, fever and couah, fruits in alcohol and then distilled also against colds, in the past in front of every stable an elder tree because it was said to prevent from hoof-and-mouth disease, stables in the past also fumigated with elder wood

deco&Dlav: small pieces of elder branches to make necklaces

other: leaves scare away mice

Trifolium repens L. food&fodder: hiah-protein foraae plant (but if the cows eat too much, their horns will not grow nicely)

29 deco&Dlav: children suck nectar out of the flowers. leaves with four leaflets are dried as good luck charms (and occasionally given as a present to the girlfriend)

other: areen manure

Trifolium pratense L. food&fodder: hiah-protein foraae plant (mainlv cultivated). nectar for beess.l.

29 deco&Dlav: children suck nectar out of the flowers

other: areen manure, nice to look at

259

©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at

Plantago lanceolata L. food&fodder: young leaves in salad, forage plant

29 med: tea of leaves (against colds, warming, expectorant), leaves grind and apply on wasp- and beestings, disinfecting on wounds, in Ricola candies

Malus domestica BORKH.

28

food&fodder: fruits (eaten raw, fed to the cows, eaten as pie, puree or dried, juice, to distill alcohol, for decoration), flowers important food for bees

deco&plav: beautiful when flowering, tree for climbing

other: wood (firewood, occasionally for furniture), shadow for grazing animals

Fagus sylvatica L.

26

food&fodder: fruits eaten

deco&plav: cupules of the fruits used to make necklaces or as decoration

other: wood (very good firewood, for construction, furniture), sprouting leaves indicate spring, forest as place to relax

Of the totally 439 plant items 368 were mentioned to have a use. Taraxacum officinale was by most informants (46) reported as useful species and got 85 use reports. It was followed by Rubus fruticosus (33/42), Urtica dioica (31/68), Abies aiba (31/53), Picea abies (31/52).

The mentioned plant uses were assigned to 12 use categories. Food was the category with the most use reports (731), followed by fodder (433), medicine (292), and drink (277; Figure 2). The most broadly used species are Abies aiba and Picea abies, occurring in nine use categories.

According to the regression analysis the plant lists were mainly influenced by age (R2=0.483, p<0.001), Professional education (R2=0.356, pcO.OOl) and sex (R2=0.254, p=0.003) of the informants

800 731 700

-c 600 8. 500

o 400 « 300

200100

0

433

292 277 244 205118

76 63

,<y

XV&xe>

42 22114

„'S“

Figure 2: Use categories ofthe documented plant species in the Napf region,Switzerland (n=51)

Discussion

A preliminary overview of the local plant knowledge reveals that the Napf-region is well suited for biocultural diversity research. While in a recent study 6,000 Swiss adolescents only knew five different plants (Lindemann-Matthies 2002), people in the Napf-region mentioned averagely 46 plants and therefore seem to have a broad plant knowledge. The two most cited species Taraxacum officinale agg. and Rumex obtusifolius L. are abundant species of the nutrient rieh grassland in the Napf-region. Almost all (46) informants mentioned some uses for Taraxacum, but uses for Rumex were only occasionally indicated. This nasty grassland weed seems though to be of cultural significance: the general saying that farmers in the canton of Berne and Lucerne respectively handle it differently reflects the inner-Swiss cultural border following the Brünig-Napf- Reuss line (W eiss 1962). While the ethnotaxonomical knowledge ofthe people is mainly influenced by age, education and gender, further analysis of the use of culturally important plants may provide additional insight into cultural Variation of plant knowledge and management (Pfeiffer & Butz 2005).

Most of the interview partners welcomed the present project and the idea to disseminate its results in the form of a populär book, which would contribute to the awareness and valuation of the local plant knowledge and plant diversity of the Napfbergland.

260

©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at

References

Bernard H.R. (2002): Research methods in Anthropology - Qualitative and quantitative approches. Walnut Creek, Altamira Press.

Borgatti S. P. (1996a): ANTHROPAC 4.0. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti S. P. (1996b): ANTHROPAC 4.0. Methods Guide. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.

LauberK. & Wagner G. (2007): Flora Helvetica. 4th edition. Haupt Verlag, Bern.

Lindemann-Matthies P. (2002): The influence of an educational program on children's perception of biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Education 24:8-21.

Maffi L. (2001): On the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. In On biocultural diversity, ed. L. Maffi, Smithonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 1-50.

Pfeiffer J. M. & Butz R. J. (2005): Assessing cultural and ecological Variation in ethnobiological research: The importance of gender. Journal of Ethnobiology 25(2):240-278.

Weiss R. (1962): Die Brünig-Napf-Reuss-Linie als Kulturgrenze zwischen Ost- und Westschweiz auf volkskundlichen Karten. Schweiz. Archiv für Volkskunde 58:201-231.

Weller S. C. & Romney A. K. (1988): Systematic Data Collection. Sage Publications, Newbury Park CA.

Welten M. & Sutter R. (1982): Verbreitungsatlas der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen der Schweiz. Birkhäuser, Basel.

Wohlgemuth T. (1993): Verbreitungsatlas der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen der Schweiz alselektronische Datenbank. Botanica Helvetica 103:55-71.http://www.wsl.ch/land/products/webflora/welcome-de.ehtml

Contact

Anna Poncetanna.poncet@boku.ac.at

Christian R. Voglchristian.voql@boku.ac.at

Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences BOKU Gregor Mendel Strasse 33 1180 Vienna Austria.

Caroline Weckerleweckerle@svstbot.uzh.ch

Institute of Systematic Botany University of Zürich Zollikerstrasse 107 8008 Zürich Switzerland

261

©Hohe Tauern National Park; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at